Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Rusty, >> >> I've gotten some good traction on the changes in the following patch. >> About 30% of the kernel is compiling right now and I'm picking up >> errors and warnings as I'm going along. I think it's doing most of >> what we need. Attempting to hide the cpumask struct definition caused >> all kinds of problems with the inline functions and statically >> declaring cpumask's. >> >> (The following patch is a combination of all the changes to cpumask.h >> with the header from the first patch. I'll send you a complete copy >> in separate email.) > > could you please send whatever .c changes you have already, so that we > can have a look at how the end result will look like? Doesnt have to > build, i'm just curious about how it looks like in practice, > semantically. > > Ingo I will, and the full "allyesconfig" does compile. And it's basically a benign change in that the functionality is still the same. I'm currently reordering it a bit to clean it up. Thanks, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
